Explanation as to what extent the audit was considered capable of detecting irregularities, including fraud.
The objectives of our audit in respect of fraud are to identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements due to fraud, to obtain sufficient audit evidence regarding the assessed risks of material misstatement due to fraud, through designing and implementing appropriate responses to those assessed risks,and to respond accordingly to instances of fraud or suspected fraud identified during the audit. However, the primary responsibility for the prevention and detection of fraud rests with both management and those charged with governance of the company.
Our approach was as follows: We obtained an understanding of the legal and regulatory frameworks that are applicable to the entity and determined that the most significant are the Companies Act 2006, the reporting framework of the Financial Reporting Standard 105, The Financial Reporting Standard applicable in the UK and Republic of Ireland and UK taxation legislation.
We understood how the company is complying with those frameworks by discussions with management. Where the risk was considered to be higher we performed audit procedures to address each identified fraud risk. These procedures included testing journals, reviewing large and/or unusual transactions, and analytical procedures on key estimates and confirming group balances. In addition, we completed procedures to conclude on the compliance of the disclosures in the financial statements with all applicable requirements.
There are inherent limitations in the audit procedures described above and the further the audit date is from the date of when the transactions reflected in the financial statements occurred, the less likely we are to become aware of irregularities and noncompliance. Also, the risk of not detecting a material misstatement due to fraud is higher than the risk of not detecting a material misstatement due to error because fraud, by nature, involves deliberate concealment by many means (for example collusion or intentional misrepresentations).
Our audit procedures in relation to fraud included but were not limited to:
- Making enquiries of the directors and management on whether they had knowledge of any actual, suspected or alleged fraud;
- Gaining an understanding of the internal controls established to mitigate risks related to fraud;
- Discussing amongst the engagement team the risks of fraud; and
- Addressing the risks of fraud through management override of controls by performing journal entry testing.
There are inherent limitations in the audit procedures described above and the primary responsibility for the prevention and detection of irregularities including fraud rests with management. As with any audit, there remained a risk of non-detection of irregularities, as these may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations or the override of internal controls.
The risks of material misstatement that had the greatest effect on our audit are the valuation of the property and the going concern.